Everybody Cheats?

Gary Alan Fine's early survey of role-playing games found that everybody cheated. But the definition of what cheating is when it applies to role-playing games differs from other uses of the term. Does everyone really cheat in RPGs?

61MMguCyhiL._AC_SL1500_.jpg

Yes, Everybody​

Gary Alan Fine's work, Shared Fantasy, came to the following conclusion:
Perhaps surprisingly, cheating in fantasy role-playing games is extremely common--almost everyone cheats and this dishonesty is implicitly condoned in most situation. The large majority of interviewees admitted to cheating, and in the games I played, I cheated as well.
Fine makes it a point of clarify that cheating doesn't carry quite the same implications in role-playing as it does in other games:
Since FRP players are not competing against each other, but are cooperating, cheating does not have the same effect on the game balance. For example, a player who cheats in claiming that he has rolled a high number while his character is fighting a dragon or alien spaceship not only helps himself, but also his party, since any member of the party might be killed. Thus the players have little incentive to prevent this cheating.
The interesting thing about cheating is that if everyone cheats, parity is maintained among the group. But when cheating is rampant, any player who adheres slavishly to die-roll results has "bad luck" with the dice. Cheating takes place in a variety of ways involving dice (the variable component PCs can't control), such as saying the dice is cocked, illegible, someone bumped the table, it rolled off a book or dice tray, etc.

Why Cheat?​

One of the challenges with early D&D is that co-creator Gary Gygax's design used rarity to make things difficult. This form of design reasoned that the odds against certain die rolls justified making powerful character builds rare, and it all began with character creation.

Character creation was originally 3d6 for each attribute, full stop. With the advent of computers, players could automate this rolling process by rapidly randomizing thousands of characters until they got the combination of numbers they wanted. These numbers dictated the PC's class (paladins, for example, required a very strict set of high attributes). Psionics too, in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, required a specific set of attributes that made it possible to spontaneously manifest psionic powers. Later forms of character generation introduced character choice: 4d6 assigned to certain attributes, a point buy system, etc. But in the early incarnations of the game, it was in the player's interest, if she wanted to play a paladin or to play a psionic, to roll a lot -- or just cheat (using the dice pictured above).

Game masters have a phrase for cheating known as "fudging" a roll; the concept of fudging means the game master may ignore a roll for or against PCs if it doesn't fit the kind of game he's trying to create. PCs can be given extra chances to reroll, or the roll could be interpreted differently. This "fudging" happens in an ebb and flow as the GM determines the difficulty and if the die rolls support the narrative.

GM screens were used as a reference tool with relevant charts and to prevent players from seeing maps and notes. But they also helped make it easier for GMs to fudge rolls. A poll on RPG.net shows that over 90% of GMs fudged rolls behind the screen.

Cheating Is the Rule​

One of Fifth Edition's innovations was adopting a common form of cheating -- the reroll -- by creating advantage. PCs now have rules encouraging them to roll the dice twice, something they've been doing for decades with the right excuse.

When it comes to cheating, it seems like we've all been doing it. But given that we're all working together to have a good time, is it really cheating?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

A nice compromise rule I've found here is to make such misses "glancing blows". Anything that is under by 1 point hits, but does half damage.

You could expand this rule of course to turn AC into a "range", granting bonus damage for every point above and reducing damage for every point below. Might be an interesting take on it....


....hadn't thought of that till now. Maybe:
Every 1 point below the target AC subtracts from the damage die of your weapon, if the total negatives equal the maximum your dice can roll, you deal no damage. Otherwise you roll and add your appropriate score, then subtract by how much you missed. For every point above the target number, you get a +1 to damage.
Now that's kitbashin'! :)

I think I'd put a cap on how far + or - this can take you, at probably +/-5, to prevent things getting too crazy particularly at the + end.

Could lead to certain characters (Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Battle Clerics) never missing, but since that's pretty much their thing I could probably live with that.
One slight counter would be to have a natural '1' always miss no matter what, if you're not already doing that.

But at mid-high levels, this would certainly give the warrior types a boost - maybe too much so in 4e-5e? Would need lots of playtesting, but I could see this being a fine idea for something like 1e-2e. In 3e or PF it just piles on to what are already too many numbers so I can't ever see using it there.

Would also give less reason to hand out magic +X gear.
While at the same time giving the players of warrior-type characters more reason to cry out for it. :)

Lanefan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Now that's kitbashin'! :)

I think I'd put a cap on how far + or - this can take you, at probably +/-5, to prevent things getting too crazy particularly at the + end.
Depends on the edition. In editions with crazy numbers, yeah, maybe create a related stacking feat "increases your glancing blows range by 5" or something.

One slight counter would be to have a natural '1' always miss no matter what, if you're not already doing that.
I don't run fumbles, but yes a nat 1 always misses.

But at mid-high levels, this would certainly give the warrior types a boost - maybe too much so in 4e-5e? Would need lots of playtesting, but I could see this being a fine idea for something like 1e-2e. In 3e or PF it just piles on to what are already too many numbers so I can't ever see using it there.
I doubt it would make a huge difference in 5E, but in other editions it would likely get crazy. But since melee-types fall severely behind at higher levels in 3X & PF, I don't think I'd worry about it too much. What, the level 18 Barbarian deals 50 damage per hit? And he has 5 hits? Okay, he's level 18! He better! Because that Dragon is about to deck him for 200!

While at the same time giving the players of warrior-type characters more reason to cry out for it. :)

Lanefan
I think it would make it more dependent on the players attitude towards magic items. Melee classes across the gaming spectrum rely heavily on gear to keep up with casters. Increasing the benefit of their base scores IMO, falls closer in line with the core concepts of those classes, than piling on the magical gear.

Yeah I'm not saying it doesn't need some testing. I literally thought it up in that post!
 

Maybe it's getting lost in all of the posts, but I tried to explain several times that we

1) are very open about the practice happening in general and do not hide it, and

2) yes, we actually will occasionally announce when we fudge things. I even listed specific examples earlier including announcing making a critical hit a non-critical and similar.

Would I announce increasing the AC? No, for a very simple reason - I wouldn't increase the AC. That's not a fudging I would do for likely the reason you think it's a gotcha question. The players would not be happy about it, especially if previous hits would now be misses which would also break immersion. If I want to draw a fight out and make it more challenging, it's far better to increase hit points rather than increasing AC. Requiring the PCs to have more successes to defeat an enemy is far more enjoyable than making them fail more often, but generally has the same practical effect. Even if we don't announce every single instance as it happens, we all know it will happen on occasion if it makes the game more fun. (And conversely, fights that are becoming a slog can have hit points be decreased on the fly.) We are are aware of it and are fine with it.

The only time I've ever adjusted AC on the fly is by lowering it by 1 if a frustrated player is having a bad night and misses by 1 (and others haven't already missed by 1).

Do you never adjust hit points from what's in the book? :)

Bottom line for us - if everyone at the table is fine with it, then it's acceptable. My group is fine with some DM fudging of certain numbers & rolls - announced in the moment when appropriate but not announced when not - and I'm not sure why that's confusing to people.

Sorry about that. I hit reply before I realized just how far back upstream I was. My bad. But, an excellent answer.

As far as adjusting HP? Nope. Not once the monster is encountered. Heh. Funny story. I run my games over Fantasy Grounds. In our last session, I couldn't understand why the monsters were so tough. The PC's were hitting, it was just that nothing was going down. Then I took a closer look at the stats and realized that Fantasy Grounds has an option that I must have mistakenly clicked somewhere along the lines, to maximize all monster HP's. :D After the fight, I kinda sheepishly admitted to the players what was going on, gave some bonus xp for the fight and changed the HP generation back to random.

Heck, I don't even KNOW the HP's of my monsters before they hit the table.
 

A nice compromise rule I've found here is to make such misses "glancing blows". Anything that is under by 1 point hits, but does half damage.

You could expand this rule of course to turn AC into a "range", granting bonus damage for every point above and reducing damage for every point below. Might be an interesting take on it....


....hadn't thought of that till now. Maybe:
Every 1 point below the target AC subtracts from the damage die of your weapon, if the total negatives equal the maximum your dice can roll, you deal no damage. Otherwise you roll and add your appropriate score, then subtract by how much you missed. For every point above the target number, you get a +1 to damage.

Could lead to certain characters (Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Battle Clerics) never missing, but since that's pretty much their thing I could probably live with that.

Would also give less reason to hand out magic +X gear.

hmmmm.....

Heh, hit on a miss rules. Gotta love 'em. Shame that any time this idea gets brought up seriously, it'll get dogpiled on as a bad idea. :/
 

Heh, hit on a miss rules. Gotta love 'em. Shame that any time this idea gets brought up seriously, it'll get dogpiled on as a bad idea. :/

Right? I mean the idea of AC is so silly when you stop and think about it. A specific target number that you have to match in order to score a "hit", but then "hit points" don't actually represent meat? I mean whaaaaaat? And scoring above, even WAY above the target number is meaningless unless you crit? Say whaaaaa?
 

Right? I mean the idea of AC is so silly when you stop and think about it. A specific target number that you have to match in order to score a "hit", but then "hit points" don't actually represent meat? I mean whaaaaaat? And scoring above, even WAY above the target number is meaningless unless you crit? Say whaaaaa?

SHHHH! Oh, god, you opened ALL THE WORMS at one time!!! They're coming! RUN!!!


------

hehe... ahem.

But, I do think that this is one of the bigger issues here. 4e rubbed people's faces in the ridiculousness of D&D rules. It made no bones about how little sense the rules actually made, so, let's treat them as "game rules" and not worry too much about the whole "immersion" thing. To me, that's what caused such a negative reaction to 4e.
 

SHHHH! Oh, god, you opened ALL THE WORMS at one time!!! They're coming! RUN!!!
Oh, an lets not forget that the way Dex and Armor apply to Ac is identical, but their practical implication in how you avoid damage is completely different.

hehe... ahem.

But, I do think that this is one of the bigger issues here. 4e rubbed people's faces in the ridiculousness of D&D rules. It made no bones about how little sense the rules actually made, so, let's treat them as "game rules" and not worry too much about the whole "immersion" thing. To me, that's what caused such a negative reaction to 4e.

That's probably what I liked about it. It was clear and up front that it was a game. Anything people wanted to add on top of that was up to them. I don't much care for pomp and circumstance in gaming, gimme the cut and dry and let me put all the makeup on the pig.

Although I do generally agree that 4E doesn't give the same feel as "traditional" D&D. I don't personally mind that but I know a lot of people did.
 

Heh, hit on a miss rules. Gotta love 'em. Shame that any time this idea gets brought up seriously, it'll get dogpiled on as a bad idea. :/
Normally I don't like at all the idea of hit-on-a-miss because a hit, as previously defined by the game, is supposed to hit for damage and a miss is supposed to miss and do no damage - very binary - and never the twain shall meet.

However what I do like with [MENTION=93444]Sunseeker[/MENTION] 's idea, and where I think it might have a lot of potential, is that it de-binarizes hit-miss* and in fact puts it on a sliding scale. With this there is no real clear hit-miss divide any more, only different gradations of hit doing damage anywhere from 0 to normal-plus-lots based on how high your attack** roll was vs. the target's AC.

* - I'm guessing this was completely unintentional, but the best ideas often are.
** - note the different terminology - I intentionally did not say "to-hit roll" here.

Lanefan
 


there's a reason the DM is there. If dice were meant to be the be all and end all, you could really play the game without one.
Given how many RPGs there are which have a distinctive GM roll, but also do not permit the GM to fudge or ignore the dice, I think this claim is obviously false.

if you can buy an adventure path and state that the dice have to be followed all the time without fudging, I can tell you with certainty that the players don't need one to actually play.
And there you go - one reason those RPGs have a GM is to provide a better RPGing experience than from pre-scripted Adventure Path RPGing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top